search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds substantial context beyond them: two independently-ranked lists, exact ranking algorithms, whitespace-token matching semantics, null ticker possibility, the 2-64 char constraint with specific 400 error codes, limit behavior, and 'Free plan, no caching'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and primary use case come first, then return shape, then constraints. Every sentence carries information (ranking, matching, limits, errors), though the length is near the upper bound for a search tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (two independently-ranked lists with their ranking criteria) and the input constraints, error codes, and scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description compensates further by explaining the matching semantics ('splitting the query on whitespace so every token must match') and that limit applies independently to each list, adding meaning beyond the schema's literal text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (resolve free-text input to a ticker or CIK) and explicitly identifies itself as 'usually the right FIRST call' when no identifier is known. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming the downstream tools it routes into (get_company_overview, get_transactions, get_insider_profile, get_insider_transactions).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it (user names a company or insider with no known identifier) and what to do with the output. The 'FIRST call' framing plus downstream routing gives the agent a clear decision rule rather than leaving it to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.